[lit-ideas] Re: Agnotology

From: Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx>

To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:51:14 -0500

Donal: "...in which case the expression is redundant (and makes as little
sense as 'Please close the door which is the door" etc) ...."
Well, I'm not a philosopher, mind you, but that seems to make perfectly
clear sense to me. Everyone one but Donal knows that a door can not be a
door.
When is a door not a door? When it's ajar. Ha! Hooo waaaa! Got you
there. You've got to admit that's a good one.
Oh, Jesus, you say, won't he (i.e., me) keep his jejune, puerile jokes out
of this serious discussion?! OK, then, I'll get serious. "Please close the
door which is the door which is ajar." There. That's not redundant. So
why didn't the speaker say simply, "Please close the door which is ajar."
But then, isn't that implicaturely otiose? For why would someone ask
another someone to close a closed door? Why? you ask. Consider this, what
if the door is the door to the cathedral close. Maybe someone might think
that the close door is only close to being closed and so says to another
someone: "Please close the close door." So, there you go. Could happen.
Life's too short for all that. But I do have to wonder when I hear someone
else say: "clothes horse" whether or not there's a horse close-by or I
wonder how one would go about closing a horse. It makes me wonder. And no
wonder, by God, for the world is full of wondrous things.
Mike Geary
close-by a closemouthed clothes moth
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>
> --- On Wed, 20/4/11, Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> > The asymmetry seems to be that while KK makes a lot of
> > sense:
> >
> > "I know she likes me; therefore I know I know she likes me"
>
> This does not make a great deal of sense, hence an expression like "I know
> I know she likes me" is a rarity outside of certain kinds of philosophical
> discourse where it might be used to exemplify Hintikka's point.
>
> Either the "I know(1) I know(2)" is meant so that "know" (1) and (2) are
> the self-same mental state, in which case the expression is redundant (and
> makes as little sense as 'Please close the door which is the door" etc) or
> (1) is a further act of knowing in relation to (2), in which case the
> inference is questionable - for surely I can believe/know p without being
> further of any belief or knowledge as to whether 'I believe I believe'/'know
> I know' p. Etc.
>
> I believe/know I said as much yesterday but remain open-minded as to
> whether that means I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe
> that I believe I said as much as yesterday.
>
> D
> Ldn
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>